A total sentence of 15 years' detention in a Young Offender's Institution for offences of kidnap, attempted kidnap, blackmail, robbery and possession of a firearm was not manifestly excessive even given the youth of the defendant.Appeal, with leave of the single judge, against a total sentence of 15 years' detention in a Young Offender's Institution for kidnap, attempted kidnap, blackmail, robbery and possession of a firearm with intent. On 19 February 2002 the defendant, ('H'), on the third day of his trial, pleaded guilty in relation to two separate incidents. The first incident involved a male victim ('P'). He was getting into his car when H pulled open the driver's door and pointed a gun at him. He threatened to shoot and made P get into the boot of his car, hitting him on the side of his head with the gun. H told P he wanted money and demanded his cash card and PIN number. There was no money in the account and H made P phone his girlfriend to get money. She said she only had ?200 but H demanded £1000. H then phoned P's girlfriend and threatened her and P. The second incident involved a young woman victim ('B') with a baby. He told P he was going to target a woman with a baby to make it easier to get money. He drove the car to a car park and selected a woman driving a BMW. P heard the woman scream and the baby crying, then men shouting to leave her alone. H said that he was forced to commit the crimes as he owed a drug debt and was being pressured by the dealers. The judge was sceptical as the first time it was mentioned was in the pre-sentence report and even if there had been pressure, it did not come close to duress which would have provided a complete defence. H appealed sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive given H was 18 years old at the time of the offences, and referred to R v Warrington (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 390 where a sentence of 15 years for kidnap and blackmail was reduced to 13 years on appeal. Further, the judge relied on victim impact statements not seen by H before going before the judge and H contended that the statements were somewhat excessive.HELD: (1) In R v Warrington (supra) the court was only dealing with one kidnap and blackmail offence, the present case concerned kidnap, attempted kidnap and blackmail. Maybe in relation to one kidnap the sentence could have been said to be excessive but in the circumstances, even given the youth of H, the sentence for the present offences could not be said to be manifestly excessive. (2) The judge had held that H remained a very dangerous man. It was unfortunate that impact statements prepared by the victims were not seen by H before going before the judge. However, even if H saw them they would still be bound to go before the judge. That would be so even if H contended the statements were excessive, the judge would not have called upon the victims to be cross-examined on those statements. Any judge reading the impact statements would have realised the impact on the victims.Appeal dismissed.